To name all of your children after your ex husband

[Caterpillarhopping]

I made a discovery about someone I've been friends with a couple of years. She has 4 children. I know her through work and we get on well but I've never known the ins and outs of her life. It came up today that she was married to her eldest child's Dad and took his surname so eldest daughter is Katie "Blogs". She went on to have 3 more children each by different men. She retained her married surname and gave that to each of the children. Second child only has the "Blogs" surname, the one after that is double barrelled and the 4th Blogs.

I sort of understand Mums logic, that she kept the same name as the eldest child (& it's absolutely not my business) but Is it not a touch weird to be sporting your ex husbands name 20 years later and have lots of children named after a man that's nothing to do with them,?

I didn't say it was. I asked why you think this is 'technically' the father's name, despite it being both. So, why?

Doesn't mean it's not true!

You just don't realise it because until recently most couples were married before havung children and the wife followed the tradition of changing her name to that of her husband. So, when the baby was named after her, she had changed her name to his beforehand.

Babies born out of wedlock would often be given their mother's surname, unless they were an established couple who just hasn't got married. Not unusual amongst poorer folk as marriage was a way to control the inheritance of wealth and they didn't have any!

As an aside, there's no such thing as a legal name under English law, it's all tradition and you can call yourself whatever you like.

Whereas I was bought up beimg told that my surname wasn't really mine, it would only be used until I got married. Which I've not done.

It’s the name the father was born with and has had all his life so it’s more the father’s surname. Yes it’s the mother’s surname too if she decides to take his name. But you can’t say it’s a tradition to give kids their mother’s surname based on the fact that most mothers change their name when they get married then give the kids the name they have changed to.

I still use my married name. Because o wanted to have the same name as my dc. And I am known professionally by that name now. Is that weird? I don’t have kids with anyone else though.

It isn’t true though. It’s not a tradition. It’s not correct to say it’s a fact that it’s a tradition. It’s very nuanced clearly.

I can’t imagine any father saying to her daughter that her name is borrowed and she can only keep it until she gets married. What kind of father does that ? Seriously !

4 by 4 is grim, dont care what anyone says.

Apparently it was only ever meant as a joke, but if you tell a child something often enough...

Exactly. That's where the confusion arises and people insisting it's traditional for children to take their father's name.

I mean, logically until very recently, a woman (and society) knew a baby she gave birth to was related to her but a man couldn't know for certain whether any particular child was related to him.

I'm convinced this is the root of the oppression of women throughout time and space.

Once again, I am not saying it's a tradition to give the kids their mother's surname. You don't need to address that point in your replies to me. We're only talking about your 'technically' claim.

So, how does it work for a surname to be more one person's than another, is there like a percentage calculator somewhere that we can use? I would like to hear more about the rationale and practicalities around this fairly bizarre claim. What if the man wasn't born with the surname he and his wife later share, is it like seven eighths of a surname? Enquiring minds want to know!

What?!?

Shock! Horror! She gave her kids her surname.

Men insist on their wives taking their names. When the wife does that the name becomes hers. It's not conditional on her staying in the marriage. It's her name. They can't decide how she uses it moving forward or that they want it back.

I had a discussion about this with my husband. He said he couldn't understand why a woman would keep their married name. I explained that if we divorce I'd be happy to change it after we've changed all the children's names to my maiden name or double barrelled and if he bares the accociated costs. He shut up very quickly.

Men who insist on their wives and children taking their surname should bear in mind that this scenario is always a possibility. In the UK, once a wife takes on her husband's name, it becomes her name and that's that.

But not in Romania, apparently. A Romanian colleague told me recently that when a couple get divorced there, the husband can insist that his ex-wife reverts to her previous surname, even if she will then have a different surname from her children.

Yeah I think it’s really weird too.

Makes it easier for travel.

I kept my married name when I divorced so I had the same name as DS. Had we not married, I intended changing my name by deed poll anyway so I would still have the same name as DS. I didn’t particularly like my maiden name, and I am NC with my dad so I have no meaningful connection to it that would make me want to go back to it.

I certainly don’t see it as my ‘married’ name, it’s MY name that I consciously chose.

My mum also kept her married name after her and dad divorced as she wanted the same name as me and my brother, but after we both married she decided to revert to her maiden name.

Had I not married and not had a child, I probably would have changed by deed poll to my mums maiden name as I prefer it to my dads and have more connection to that side of my family.

Names are very personal and have a lot of meaning in my eyes. I can see why the lady OP describes has named her children in the way she has

And older siblings with the same family name own a bigger percentage because they've had it longer? But what if the older sibling is a girl and the younger sibling a boy...?

No one seems at all worried or confused I have a different name to my kids. It is a weird that she gave her other kids some unrelated man's name. I can't imagine what is going on in this woman's life that the subsequent fathers allowed it.

If the only reason you change your name is because you marry someone, what’s the rationale for keeping it when you’ve ditched the husband?
You surely can’t be that attached to a name you only decided to use because it belonged to your erstwhile husband.

Allowed it! It’s not 1547.

Maybe this woman, who is a different person from you, wants to have the same name as her children.

You don’t, but she does.

So many questions.
I've had my surname since birth, so over 40 years. My SIL has had it for about 13 years. Yet according to my family it's more hers than it is mine because I've only got it on loan until I get married which is never
I wonder if my brothers first wife kept the name, and what my family think of that. After all by taking it at the point of marriage it was her real name, unlike her birth name which was only on loan until said marriage.

Agreed to it? They’re not just her kids.

How about we just let women make their own decision on what they want their name to be? Instead of telling them what their name should be.

They're not, but as she wasn't married to any of the subsequent fathers, legally it would only have been her decision. An unmarried father's agreement is immaterial.

If he gave enough of a shit he could apply for a court order, but even then it would likely have been a double barrel. Inclusion of the mother's surname just isn't something any of the dads could realistically prevent.